Sheryl Sandberg, chief operating
officer of Facebook and founder of the Lean In movement, recently
initiated the Ban Bossy campaign, employing the star power of Beyonce,
Condoleeza Rice, and Jennifer Garner to illustrate that young girls’ assertiveness
is punished through negative labels (e.g., bossy,
stubborn, pushy), leading to gender inequality as shown by girls being more
interrupted than their male peers, less likely to raise their hands to ask
questions in the classroom, and less likely to pursue leadership roles. As the
name implies, Sandberg responds to this inequality by calling to ban the word bossy.
The Ban Bossy campaign is not
without its criticisms. Most prominently, bell hooks raised a counter movement under the #bebossyandproud Twitter tagline, encouraging women to
reclaim bossy instead of banning the
word by tweeting that they are “bossy and proud because (fill in the blank)."
This response prompted me to ask a
few questions: First, what advantage does bell hooks's movement offer over
Sandberg’s? Second, why is this response necessarily juxtaposed against
Sandberg’s movement?
Although the ends to promote gender equality are equivalent, the means are different. #bebossyandproud reframes feminist causes from functioning as thought police to functioning as a form of empowerment. “You should not say bossy” becomes “we should embrace bossy.” While both acknowledge the damage inherent in such gendered insults, bell hooks’s campaign places the locus of power and change in those affected by the insults. It says women policed by language should strip the insult of its derogatory intent and embrace it as symbolic of their assertiveness.
Sandberg’s message has a different target audience. While it does not empower the insulted women to own and reclaim the insult, it states that those who insult women should stop insulting them.
Seeing these differences, why are these posed as counter movements? It should be a both/and instead of an either/or. To elaborate, I would still sanction gendered insults that marginalize women as I would promote women to remove the power of those insults (likewise, SlutWalks empower some women to embrace their sexuality and protest rape excuses; however, we should still call out those who insult sexually active women as sluts). I enjoy that some women are able to channel the insult to be a source of energy and a reaffirmation of their strength; however, there is still value in calling out sexist insults. Both arguments should be present to effect change.
Although the ends to promote gender equality are equivalent, the means are different. #bebossyandproud reframes feminist causes from functioning as thought police to functioning as a form of empowerment. “You should not say bossy” becomes “we should embrace bossy.” While both acknowledge the damage inherent in such gendered insults, bell hooks’s campaign places the locus of power and change in those affected by the insults. It says women policed by language should strip the insult of its derogatory intent and embrace it as symbolic of their assertiveness.
Sandberg’s message has a different target audience. While it does not empower the insulted women to own and reclaim the insult, it states that those who insult women should stop insulting them.
Seeing these differences, why are these posed as counter movements? It should be a both/and instead of an either/or. To elaborate, I would still sanction gendered insults that marginalize women as I would promote women to remove the power of those insults (likewise, SlutWalks empower some women to embrace their sexuality and protest rape excuses; however, we should still call out those who insult sexually active women as sluts). I enjoy that some women are able to channel the insult to be a source of energy and a reaffirmation of their strength; however, there is still value in calling out sexist insults. Both arguments should be present to effect change.
In short, there is room for both a “fuck you” and a
“fuck yeah.”
This is a great post! The word bossy should not be an insult at all. I have seen posters around campus about Tina Fey's book bossy pants. In the description on Amazon, it says "you are no one until someone calls you bossy". It seems that being bossy is a compliment and not an insult.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that we think the word "bossy" is an insult shows how we still have the dichotomy between maleness and femaleness with maleness indicating active while femaleness passive. Maybe it is uncanny when we see women acting bossy because they are then acting like our mental prototype of males?
I agree with you that the two campaigns can work together to criticize the use of "bossy" as an insult in our culture. Maybe one way this could be done is to ban the use of bossy as an insult, but promote as a compliment. Isn't that the way the queer community owned the word "queer" and "gay"?
Ian,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree with you that these two movements can be so compatible. I think the the more crucial distinction between "Ban Bossy" and #bebossyandproud is not with their target demographic, but rather with where they locate the core of the issue. "Ban Bossy" suggests that once folks quit calling women "bossy," the issue will just disappear (sounds a lot like colorblind ideology to me). On the other hand, #bebossyandproud digs deeper; it recognizes that we cannot attack specific insults (as they will invariably be substituted with others) but rather the very framework that allows and perpetuates sexist insults. Indeed, it does so by a total reversal of the logic of "bossy." So, while I totally agree with you that there is space to both reclaim words and shut-down sexist insults, the latter should not be framed as "don't say bossy," but rather as "don't say shit that entrenched in sexist thinking."
I would expect the #bebossyandproud campaign playing out much like the reclaimed "queer." For a while, it seemed to be on rocky foundation, but has come to have lost much of its negative connotations. We tell little girls all the time, "Don't boss your sister around" or some iteration thereof and we socialize them into thinking that being bossy is bad; but how does one get anywhere without a tinge of bossiness? Especially as a woman. If we look at the "Ban Bossy" movement, I can see it being successful in bringing attention of this issue to men, who I don't think always realize the double-standard use of the word. I just don't see them (men, that is) complying with the message; instead, they may use it as further fuel to add to the sexist fire of the corporate world.
ReplyDeleteGiven the somewhat successfulness of the "queer" (as a word) revolution, I am inclined to agree with the #bebossyandproud campaign more fully. If you tell people not to do something (especially boys - maybe another stereotype of mine), they want and tend to do it more; thus, I can foresee men taking the "Ban Bossy" campaign and spinning it to further their own needs, using it as an excuse for example to prevent the promotion or hire of a female coworker. #bebossyandproud campaign, as you said, places the power to change in the hands of the oppressed; I just don't know if that's enough.
Both of these approaches resemble "using the master's tools to dismantle the master's house." Can we, instead, think of another more positive word to replace "bossy?" But then again, that might just lead us to the same problem - just with another word. It is deeper than the word we use. It has to do with the non-canonicality of seeing a "bossy" woman. We are socialized to see men as assertive and thus if our experience contradicts that, we ease the cognitive dissonance by relegating that person to an "outlier" or "anomaly."
What if we simply make assertive women less of an anomaly? If there are more and more of us (like Sheryl Sandberg and Condoleeza, and Beyonce), it wouldn't be so weird to see and thus would not need to be reconciled with any preconceived gendered notions. This vision starts with child development. Parents and teachers and coaches and the media and other formative influences on a child must dispel with this false assumption and promote healthy assertiveness for young boys AND girls. This is perhaps one way that Gloria's advice "think big, unite and use our power" can play out in the next 50 years. Let’s use the power we have as the primary caregivers of our families to alter the systematic oppressive connotation of the word “bossy” for our children.
I also think that being bossy should never be viewed as a negative thing. If a woman wants to stand up and be an assertive human, than that is fine. There should be no difference between a bossy woman and a bossy man. I don't think that they should try to shy away from that because I do believe that it would be more beneficial for everyone if they tried to reclaim the word instead of banning it. I don't think that they should shy away and try to change things to make it better, but instead being proud of who they are and asserting themselves saying that this is what they want to do and it isn't wrong.
ReplyDelete